Archive for the ‘Election 2008’ Category
President Obama didn’t provide ‘change’ I could ‘believe in’. He provided change I could be entirely skeptical of. This, kids, is how to tell a lie, and bask in the limelight of public opinion.
As someone commented over at Lewrockwell.com, “apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”
To help differentiate a liar from a truth-teller, I provide the following example of the courage to tell the truth, while everyone around you will attack you for it.
In one week, Americans will flock to the polls to elect the nation’s next president. Many voters believe it is their civic duty to vote; a duty that requires knowledge of the political climate and candidates’ platforms. The media has covered the upcoming election unceasingly for the past year, offering a source of information for many voters. Countless polls have been administered, personal histories of candidates have been thoroughly examined, and a string of debates has allowed for the major candidates to compare and contrast their policy preferences and beliefs. But one question that is seldom asked is perhaps the most important question of all: What do you intend to achieve with your vote?
If your answer has anything to do with determining the next president, you are deceiving yourself. In fact, a statistical analysis conducted by Constitutionalist Party candidate Chuck Baldwin estimates the probability of a single vote determing the president to be so low that one would have to vote in every presidential election for 230 million years before his vote is determinate. Your odds of dying in an automobile accident on the way to the polls is ten times greater. And this analysis was conducted under the most favorable conditions for a single vote: evenly matched parties in both the state and nation.
Read the rest of this entry »
In light of conversations I’ve had (one way or another) with a few of my friends over the course of the past few days, I want to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting for a “Third Party” candidate in the upcoming election. I am writing this because based on the feedback I have received each time I’ve mentioned not voting for either John McCain or Barack Obama, as this decision is not a popular one.
The typical response that I get is probably the least logical, so I will start with that one. A vote NOT for John McCain, is NOT a vote for Barack Obama (however much some may want me to believe it is). If I vote for a candidate that I don’t like to keep another candidate I don’t like out of office, I have accomplished nothing. I want anyone reading this to know that I believe in democracy and I love this country, and I mention this to say that I do not believe that democracy should entail being told who I should or should not vote for, especially when NEITHER of the so-called options (as if I only have two) is worth my consideration, much less my vote… Read the rest of this entry »
So with the two presidential nominees set to spar over the Executive seat up for grabs, we are all left asking ourselves, “Which is the lesser evil?” I would like to first point out that I believe these two candidates are both horrible choices for president, but right now I would like to focus on the self-proclaimed change candidate, Barack Obama. I hear Obama when he labels himself as an agent of change; I’m just not sure what kind of change he is talking about. Seemingly, nothing has come out of his mouth that is a big change for democratic presidential nominees.
Perhaps he is talking about his change in positions. In February, when asked about vouchers, which involves the payment of government money to the parents of private school children, Obama said that he might be open to them. His reasoning was that if studies could show that they help to improve education, he would not let his predispositions stand in the way. An interesting stance seeing as how some studies show vouchers do improve education, while others show they don’t. However, after a little pressure from teachers’ unions, Obama quickly ‘changed’ his stance on vouchers. His position now is to not support vouchers in any shape or form. Maybe he found a foolproof study among the lot.
Speaking about the Cuba embargo, which is the US trade ban with Cuba, in January 2004, Obama said we should, “end the Cuba embargo.” His reasoning was that it had, “utterly failed to overthrow Castro.” In a speech given in 2007, Obama ‘changed’ his position, saying that he would not, “take off the embargo,” because, “it is an important inducement for change.” Let’s not consider the fact that the trade embargo has been in place for 46 years already. Has much changed with Cuba in 46 years? The US trades with communist China and Vietnam, yet we deny Cubans the right to American goods. Is this 46 year-old initiative your idea of change?
While running for US Senate in 2004, Obama said he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. However, in 2007 he ‘changed’ his position to fit in with his fellow democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of the drug. Obama has also ‘changed’ his stance on civil liberties. He now supports legislation to grant immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with wiretapping without warrants. Let’s not forget that Obama also voted for the Patriot Act, which is a gross overstatement of federal involvement in the lives of citizens. This bill lets the government illegally spy on its citizens, most notably through international phone calls. This is confusing if you consider that the democrat/liberal position of pro-choice is based on the Bill of Rights and our right to privacy, and, as Obama has stated, the trust he has of women to make the right decision. So evidently, he trusts us enough to decide if our children should live or die, but he doesn’t trust us to make overseas phone calls.
In January of this year, Obama described union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards camp as special interest money. However, once Obama started getting several union checks himself, he ‘changed’ his position. He now refers to unions as agents of the working people. How about campaign financing? Obama once was a supporter of public financing for campaigns and said he would accept public money as a presidential candidate if his opponent did the same. He now has ‘changed’ that stance and recently denied public funds so he could maintain his massive private fundraising. Keep in mind he will be the first presidential candidate since Watergate not to accept public funds. In good ole politician form, he also put a spin on why he did this whilst blaming his opponent at the same time. What a change! So perhaps the change Obama is talking about is the kind in his pocketbook.
Obama is also in bed with AIPAC, and is dedicated to Israel. He has recently sounded more like Bush in talking about the nuclear threat of Iran, which is pretty much non-existent. He doesn’t ever mention Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people. He does downplay the threat of Iran to America, yet considers them a huge threat to Israel. I suppose we should risk the lives of US soldiers and the near suicide of the American economy so Obama can please AIPAC and keep Israel safe while not making a single American more secure.
The fact is there is nothing about this man that embodies change. People who believe this will be very disappointed in his performance. We deserve better than somebody who can merely give a good speech. We need good policies, and Barack Obama is lacking in them.
In summing up the presidential candidates, I don’t think I could come across an easier critique than John McCain. Republicans these days almost always seem to be a walking contradiction. McCain personifies that image with amazing ease. His warmonger rhetoric is enough to deny him my vote, yet he loves giving me new reasons. It really upsets me that the democrats had to pick such a horrible candidate for their nominee, because I would really like to vote against the platform of John McCain. Lucky for the republicans, the democrats have kept stride and chosen Barack Obama. I guess, for me, it’s either vote third party or not vote.
McCain embodies the reincarnation of George W. Bush’s presidency. The neocons that got Bush elected even when his opponent received more votes are now on the John McCain bandwagon. So where does John McCain fall when it comes to the neocons’ most famous issue? Well if you haven’t viewed McCain’s Beach Boys remake on youtube yet, let’s just say he aligns very well with the neocons on the war issue. That’s right, John McCain can sing, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and not feel sympathetic for it. He actually said he was proud of it. He tells people to, “lighten up,” when they criticize him for his unique song writing ability. I wonder what John McCain would say if Ahmidinijad jokingly sang a song about bombing America or Israel? Let me give you some straight talk my friends; John McCain is not funny. It’s not funny for a presidential candidate to sing a song about bombing a country that we already are having hostile relations with thanks to the very rhetoric of people like John McCain.
Not only does McCain nonchalantly speak of bombing Iran, he confuses Iranians as sponsors of Al Qaeda almost daily. McCain has stated, “It is common knowledge,” that, “Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back to Iraq.” This, he said, “is well known.” Of course this was well known only to him until he was quickly corrected by Joe Lieberman and had to apologize to his audience. Of course Sunni, Shia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Extremists: these are all the same to John McCain. One of the most important lessons in demonizing your presumptive enemy is lumping them all into a big nest of insanity, isn’t it? If you can make people believe that Iranians are all crazy and sing, “Death to America,” every night by the bonfire while roasting American flags and dreaming of suicide bombings, then you have a shot at starting a war that would otherwise seem immoral and completely ludicrous. Can you seriously trust a man who doesn’t understand the culture of the Middle East to be able to fix what is mainly a cultural problem?
McCain is even worse on economic issues. He himself has said that he still needs to be educated on the economy. You should watch his ‘deer-in-headlights’ expression when asked about the Federal Reserve and interest rates. When asked if he thought the Federal Reserve had cut interest rates aggressively enough, McCain said, “I’m glad whenever they cut interest rates, I wish interest rates were zero.” I’m hoping that was another one of his hilarious jokes, because it sure made me laugh. Let’s not also forget that if we do attack Iran, which McCain loves to sing about on karaoke nights, the Straight of Hormuz would most likely be cut off. If this happens, oil prices could very well double almost overnight, and then have a near endless rise thereafter. What do you think that would do to the American economy? Could McCain and his zero percent interest rates fix that kind of a blow?
McCain is also quick, with his new neocon agenda, to say he never supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet McCain has been quoted with saying, “I think we could set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people,” and that, “amnesty has to be an important part,” to any kind of immigration reform. McCain has also stated that he would not even vote for the immigration bill that he helped write! Moreover, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts and said that he would not support extending them. Yet now, he has come out with campaign ads saying he will make them permanent. So which side of the issue can you trust him not to do?
It saddens me listening to McCain and his opponent, because I know that both parties had good candidates to choose from. Maybe in a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be the nominees. However, until then, we’re stuck with more of the same.